The subject of the dispute was the **nullification of the results of a state procurement and the contract for the capital repair of a military canteen** in the city of Poltava.
The prosecution, in the interest of the **Ministry of Defense of Ukraine**, claimed that the procurement was conducted **with violations**, while the defendants — the **Housing and Operational Department of the city of Poltava** and **TechnoBud-Ukraine LLC** — denied this, insisting on the legality of the bidding process.
The courts of first instance and appeal **denied the prosecution’s claim**.
The court established that the **rejection of other bidders was justified**, as they did not meet the requirements of the tender documentation, and **TechnoBud-Ukraine LLC fully complied with these requirements**. The court also noted that **nullifying the procurement results and the contract without applying the consequences of nullity would not restore the state’s rights**, thus **such a method of protection is ineffective**. The prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence of procedural violations or wrongful actions by the defendants.
The **Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal** and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.
